Allahabad High Court
Narayan Singh vs State Of U.P. on 31 July, 2020
Author: Samit Gopal
Bench: Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 3 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5498 of 2020 Applicant :- Narayan Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Sarvesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,A K Shukla,Anil Kumar Shukla,Anil Kumar Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anil Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for first informant and Sri Manu Raj Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material on record.
This bail application under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the applicant- Narayan Singh seeking enlargement on bail during trial in Case Crime No. 301 of 2019, under Section 302 and 201 of I.P.C., registered at P.S. Kotwali Sadabad, District Hathras.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the present case is circumstantial in nature. Although a child aged about 3 years, has died but the implication of the applicant is incorrect and there is total lack of links in the circumstances in which the applicant has been arrested. It is argued that as per the prosecution case, it is stated that the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the house of the applicant but the said version is a bald version without any substantial corroboration. While elaborating the said argument, it is argued that the inquest of the deceased was conducted at C.H.C., Sadabad and as such the dead body as was stated to be recovered from the house of the applicant gets doubtful. It is further argued that the story of last seen is also not coming forth against the applicant. The same is against co-accused Chandani. It is further argued that the applicant has no motive whatsoever to commit the murder. It is further argued that the applicant has no criminal history as stated in para-14 of the affidavit and is in jail since 21.08.2019. The further argument regarding the falsity of the prosecution case is being argued on the basis of fact that one co-accused Sandeep Singh was named in the First Information Report but during investigation his implication was found to be incorrect and as such he was exonerated by the police. It is thus argued that the prosecution has not come out truthfully in the present matter. It is further argued that co-accused Chandani has given her confessional statement before the police, wherein she stated to have committed the murder.
Per contra, learned counsel for the first informant opposes the prayer for bail and argued that the applicant is named in the First Information Report. The dead body, as per the consistent case of the prosecution, was recovered from his house. The child was taken to the hospital, where he was declared dead and as such inquest was conducted in the hospital.
Learned A.G.A. also opposes the prayer for bail and argues that the child after being recovered from the house of the applicant was as a natural consequence taken to the hospital by his parents, where he was declared dead and as such the inquest was conducted in the hospital. It is further argued that even in the First Information Report, it is mentioned that the police of Dial 100 was called and the dead body was recovered from the house of the applicant. Learned A.G.A. has placed Parcha no.12 of the case diary and has argued that the fact of the police of Dial 100 at the time of recovery of dead body from the house of the applicant creates corroboration. He argues that the applicant is bounded under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to explain the circumstances against him, which he failed to do.
Looking to the facts and circumstanced of the case, I do not find it a fit case for bail. Accordingly, the present bail application is rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of aforesaid case and conclude the same in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.
The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Samit Gopal,J.) Order Date :- 31.7.2020 Saif